 Let us have some fun: what can be the lead theme of the meeting of Krakow Sonic Society, from which the report will be presented in an issue describing almost only CD players, and fully devoted to digital devices and accessories (and in addition in the February HFOL issue we will deal only with products related to vinyl records)? And one that raises emotions? Probably that could only be the comparison of digital and analog. )
Actually, when I was preparing the meeting, the main goal I had in mind, was education. Self education. The first reason was to explain this publication to the readers, the second one was important especially for me. The case is still alive. When first CD players were introduced for sale, and this happened in 1981 (in Japan), they sounded just bad. As with every new technology, with this one also every possible error that could have been made was made, and in addition many things were unknown, or little attention was paid to them. Like jitter. Like digital filters. Like analog filters and mutual relation of those elements. Form that time 25 years have passed and many things changed. Most of all the CD began to be seen as a source of high quality sound, and later as a hi-end source. During the years the bad feeling, that the silver disc is behind the vinyl appeared again and again. In spite of slogans like "Digital Perfection", "Perfect Sound Forever" and other, a bit exaggerated (but this is the nature of marketing catchwords) statements, the number 1 source for many music lovers, and also for most foreign editors dealing with audio was the gramophone. Regardless of that, or maybe because of that, I think, the era of the CD arrived. I am not affectionate to any technology, I use CDs, vinyl, SACD and DVD-Audio and I know, that none of them is able to recreate the real happening, they all just create an artifact, or an image of the real experience, written on the disc, interpreted in their own, unique way. This is unpleasant, but it is like that. If we realize these shortcomings, there is nothing more in the way, to have a closer look, which medium can bring us closer to the set standard, what recording can fool us better (because it is about some kind of mystification, the recording has to create an illusion, that we listen to a live concert). The assumption for this approach is there, and has been growing in me for some time. After listening to the top digital players (I did not have listened to all existing in the world, but to a significant majority - I did), among others dCS, EMM Labs, Ancient Audio, Wadia, Accuphase or Esoteric and others, and also to many outstanding gramophones, I come to the conclusion, that the distance between those two technologies narrowed to minimal dimensions. Hold your horses and holster your weapons... This is just my opinion, and not the universal truth. The problem with vinyl and digital is similar to the one with transistor and tube: besides the rational premises emotions are bound to them, and the cult status of the vinyl in some way eliminates this technology from the dispute, or at least limits it significantly. And this is bad, very bad. Things we cannot discuss, that cannot be criticized, are quite suspicious, not to say - pointless. Such elements of reality fall in the categories of belief, and not in the category of consensus, the basis of human behavior. So, if you are not prepared for a discussion about your favorite medium, if any mentioning of its competitors provokes a shiver of disgust, maybe this is the time to hold off - it may happen, that something important will escape us, the goal: listening to music in a way, that transfers us best to the time and place the recording was made. ASSUMPTIONS )
This meeting was prepared from the need of tracking the changes and for learning. Please treat it as the first of a cycle of this kind of comparisons - I will try to report the more interesting ones in "HIGH Fidelity OnLine". This listening had the goal, aside from the listening itself, of working out of a methodology of such comparisons, finding out a way of getting most reliable results. I think that this goal was achieved, and prepared us for next meetings. First we had to create some borderline assumptions. Because what do we compare: vinyl and CD in absolute terms or in relative terms? In the first case we would have to compare the best existing gramophone (or more than one) with the best existing CD player (or a few of them). Probably sooner or later this will happen, but even a short glance in the price lists shows, that this comparison would not be completely fair, because if we assume that the best (or one of the best) gramophones is the Caliburn (with the Cobra arm and Castelon suspension) of the Australian company Continuum Audio Labs, add to this a top pick-up, phono preamplifier and cabling and the price will total about (more or less) 150000USD. And the best digital system can be assembled for much less. Even if we assume we test the most EXPENSIVE digital system, its price will not exceed 200000zł, so it will be much lower. This means quite a price disproportion. On one hand the basic assumption, the comparison of the analog and the digital in absolute terms, will be realized, because we will hear the best each technology has to offer, on the other hand it will tell nothing about REAL products, gramophones and players, that are in reach for a broader range of audiophiles. So in the beginning I assumed, that we are going to compare sources costing about 60000zł. This is quite an amount, but many people in Poland has such sources, and the comparison will be more equaled in terms of money you have to spend on each technology. An important element of the listening experience was also the tonal similarity of the opponents, so that the differences in timbre coming from the devices themselves would not distract attention from the differences between the technologies. On the side of the vinyl played the ultra precise, largely deprived from its own character gramophone Oracle Delphy MkV (test upcoming in "Audio"), with Dynavector XV-1S pick-up (I probably improved it with the even more transparent Dynavector 23R Karat), with the preamplifier Steelhead of the company Manley (this is the best gramophone preamplifier I have listened to - test in the February issue of HFOL). In the opposite corner I planned the player Ancient Audio Lektor Grand, a device comparable in price - a phenomenal player, that I know very well and that resembles a gramophone with its physicality... But the most important fact was that in its sound many characteristics appear that are commonly associated with the analog and has absolutely no digital harshness. That was the plan. But as all human plans it had to be revised. It turned out, that at half the price, the Lektor Prime (test HERE) sounds - at least in my opinion - in many aspects better than the Grand. No, it is not that the more expensive player suddenly sounds worse - it competes on equal basis with the leaders of foreign digital world, but in the Prime something special was achieved. In some way I introduced asymmetry into the equation, which was about price parity. However let us assume we do compare 60000zł sound sources - from the sound point of view it will be true enough... LISTENING EXPERIENCE - VOICES FROM THE AUDIENCE The listeners came to the meeting with their own idea of sound and a solid thesis - I saw it in their eyes, and after enjoying a glass of wine they did not hide it. The listening experience changed much of this. During the comparison it was clearly visible, after a few days not so strongly, but it left a trace on their cognition of sound: the vinyl followers left the room convinced, that the digital source has some advantages and vice versa. To diversify the report, to make it as close to reality as much as possible, multi vocal, I asked the participants to make short wrap-ups of the meeting, of course absolutely subjective. To bring this report closer to the medial reality I will summarize it in the end, and it will be me having the last word in this case :) VOICE 1. Mr Jarek Waszczyszyn, the constructor of Lektor Prime, a man fully devoted to the zeros and ones (though on the other hand he carries out the hard-audiophile paradigm, building SET amplifiers based on the 300B triode) describes the comparison as follows: "I am trying to put in order my impressions after yesterdays meeting. Vinyl or CD? Black or silver? Beautiful or true? First a general conclusion: I do not have a good opinion about the sound of the vinyl. On many shows in Poland and abroad I tried to listen to a gramophone with interest. In general, they were just rubbish. In my audiophile experience actually only two analog systems appealed to me enough, that I return to them with pleasure. The first one was the system of Leif Christensen from Norway. ) Leif Christensen's analog system This is probably the Olympe of the analog: a sturdy gramophone placed on granite, Air Tangent tone arm on an air cushion, Lyra pick-up, RIAA preamplifier with a separate power supply - with a decent amount of tubes and best make capacitors inside. The whole played with special 300B tube amplifiers and Avantagarde Acoustic Trio tube speakers. The system knocked me down with dynamics, freedom of reproducing a big-band, rhythm. The second gramophone I have a sentiment to is my own construction, made on request from Jarek Smietana - the legend of the Polish jazz guitar. It was designed to match the Lektor IV, that explains the granite suspension. I used the Pro-Ject turntable and the Linn. The gramophone could sound very nicely, instead of reverb planes appeared in the space, the voice reproduction was also up to pair. The biggest problem were the discs. My collection of analogs is residual, no more than 50 titles. From those maybe two or three could be listened to. The rest (some superb discs with classical repertoire) appeared to be on the level of the Bambino (my peers will know what I am talking about, youngers should educate). This is the reason I was very interested (I shifted the name day of my wife by a week!) in preparing for the meeting of the Fearless Knights of the Krakow Sonic Society, especially as the same recordings were prepared in black and silver editions. The attitudes were completely different: "death of the vinyl" or: "a digital player will never play real music ". ) The gramophone made by Ancient Audio on request from Jarek Smietana And here appeared, that the fight was on equal terms. We listened to the gramophone in very comfortable environment. The Silver Grand Mono amplifiers have an incredible speed and dynamics. And in connection with the "analog softness" the final effect was very good. There were two three discs, where we had a fierce discussion what sounded better. Even more, the Knights unanimously declared the absolute supremacy of the Keith Jarret piano on the Cologne Concert vinyl disc. I did not perceive it like that, but it is common knowledge, that I have some hearing problems - even my family claims that I hear only what I want to hear. I can't help it. But there were also two analog discs that stayed on the turntable for more than a dozen seconds. Total defeat. And probably the general conclusion is as follows: the gramophone sounds nice and the CD sounds true. The main energy of the gramophone concentrates on the midrange of the sound spectrum, so many crippled recordings vinyl stripped from unnecessary "additions" and the music was more "digestible". The only exception was Getz/Gilberto [Stan Getz & Joao Gilberto - Getz/Gilberto, Verve V6-8545, 180g LP was meant - editors note] - a disc that sounded in contrast to the common opinion: soft on the CD [just to clarify the picture - the CD version was the Mobile Fidelity MFSL-1-208, gold-CD - editors note] and harsh on the vinyl. But this was just the result of different mastering, as even the channels were swapped. The vinyl timbre could be liked; but the bass, rhythm, attack, definition of instruments, space were definitely on the side of the CD. And the most important thing for me was one impression: despite the selected set of vinyl discs I had NEVER the feeling that the music was real, that somebody played in the listening room, here and now. And this is the feeling I do have more often while listening to CDs and a good CD player. VOICE 2. The next voice is from Ryszard - a vinyl lover, that listens to Lektor Prime from some time (there are three such devices in Krakow), so he is acquainted with the sound character of this player."A bit late, but from a greater distance I will allow myself sonic comparisons and private, subjective conclusions from the meeting - just as it remained in my memory.
1. I came to this meeting convinced to the superiority, not of the holidays, but vinyl over the CD, both in the segment of normal and audiophile disc pressings, with what I came out of the meeting I will write in the end. And this is how it went:
To not to be judged as prejudiced, we were listening to my private Lektor Prime CD player, so I was its fan, and not the foreign gramophone.
1. For the casual listener, due to the quality of masterings, the CD is better, because based on my observation more bad vinyl pressings were issued than CDs, not even talking about the ease of use. VOICE 3. )
Next voice will be the statement of the Host, owner of Lektor Grand, who was a mad vinyl lover some time ago, and most of his collection (a significant one) were special edition LPs, and who, in time, made an U turn and now has only CDs. And those are almost only Japanese editions: "I will start with the conclusion: inconsiderable win of vinyl over the CD.
I will concentrate on the discs I remember. So Rock discs "Hendrix" and "War" decisively in favor of the CD, practically, or better - for sure, in all aspects of the sound. Irrevocably a win for the CD. With exemption of Depeche Mode, which sounded more friendly, with a smoother sound, but with the remark that this is an electronic instrumentation, without a reference point, so it is difficult to talk about timbre. But I am willing to point to DM on vinyl. General remarks The superiority, or slight, although probably for other people significant, supremacy of the vinyl over the CD is mainly in showing those small, one would think insignificant, music, timbre, physical, psychoacoustic aspects and bringing those to our attention in such a way, that we, in my opinion, fall to the illusion of naturalism and perceive all these sounds as real. This the proverbial dot on the "i" or the drop that fills the "bowl" of our sound representation. Of course these thoughts relate only to extreme components, because we are talking in absolute categories. I did not mention "ergonomic" aspects, as here since long ago, or maybe from always (when the CD appeared), is nothing to talk about. Another remark that my friend has made: "with regard to crackles - this is not acceptable for me, it destroys completely the sense of illusion - me- musicians. It is like looking at a spectacle through a perfectly transparent glass window until we hit it with our nose. Those crackles are the hit with the nose. Very unpleasant." VOICE 4. In the end I will quote the opinion of Jacek - a man with a top split Accuphase system of the "9x" series, also two generations back, bought with precognition, due to the way it sounds (about a comparison of the Accu with Lektor, albeit in a different system I have written HERE). However his second sound source is the LP12 from Linn. In addition he also has a beautiful collection of original or early editions of discs we gladly used during our meeting. )
"First listening to vinyl during the evening made a big impression on me: space, loosening of the sound from speakers, and the sound itself - touchable, full, just as expected it could be. After the talks during the listening session and later on the phone, I know that I disagree with my colleagues in the description of the first two discs - Dave Brubeck and Jimmy Hendrix. It seems that they searched for elements of sound in favor of the CD in an unjustified way. Brubeck - in some way I was disappointed, I was thinking that the disc is recorded better. Except for my original (6 Eyes) I know also the contemporary pressing from a few years ago - it is significantly worse than the original, with a more delicate sound, completely deprived from energy. But this is a recording from 1959, so we can assume that it cannot be done better. Anyway, it has it's climate (we are talking about the sound, because the music is not being assessed - it is phenomenal). Anyway somewhat I missed the right rhythm and energy, that could be expected on this recording. Next the same on CD - I hear that the cymbals are better. In my opinion it should not necessarily be like that, because their sound I remembered should be a little "dirtied", not so crystal clear. I think that on the CD the cymbals are too thin, too delicate, and on the edges a bit rounded. Then we put on the Hendrix' LP - and I don't know what happens, sound like from a well, served from a distance. After the corrections made by VTA - better, but it still misses something. And then the Bill Evans Trio from a 45rpm disc - first time I hear something like that, I feel like in a real club. In my opinion this is the best recording I heard this evening. The whole room was filled with music, natural and in reach of an extending hand. When we turned on the CD the room was filled only in half, behind the speakers. Bass was a bit rounded, although this was a XRCD recording. Regardless, there is no doubt, and vinyl wins without a trace of hesitation. With Jarret from the "Concert" - LP sounded also better for me, probably due to a better illusion of a real piano on vinyl. On CD i heard longer reverb, something like dirt, but this is probably just the recording. In general - on the CD I still hear unnecessary rounding and many times fuzziness of the bass. In this configuration I prefer the "truth" served by LP. And the vinyl is just like it is, in some way this is a return to the past and I think that a top construction would be unbeatable. In conclusion I would like to say that you should actually have both. For classics the CD seems irreplaceable, mainly through unacceptable - at least for me - crackles and noises in silent passages on the LP. But audiophile editions of the LP, especially the Jazz ones, are for me, at the moment, not beatable by the digit". MY VOICE Summarizing in short what I want to say, I have to repeat what one of the participants (Janusz) has said: At this moment, in this price range, the indication is to the LP. There are a few implications of this statement. First of all I was surprised how well the CD sounded. I heard this before at my place, and I repeated later, but then, with those discs with the Silver Grand it was heard especially well: the digital technology made a gigantic step forward. Without a trace of doubt this is a growing format. In comparison with it vinyl stays at the same level - very good one, high, but in the general borders of the paradigm unchangeable. Of course some aspects are bettered, like precision, extension of the bass and similar, but these are just tiny steps, small "shuffling" forwards, that in view of the progress of the digital technology are almost completely invisible. In favor of the vinyl speaks most of all the presentation of a big, full picture. Without analyzing the individual discs, generalizing, we can say that the black disc can sound in a very suggestive way, because it presents the event on a disc as a whole, shows the "fluid", the air between the players. I am not fully sure, if this is the truth or what we think to be the "truth" about the sound, but this kind of transmission seems to be a bit more natural. Most important in it is probably, aside from the volume of the instruments, the space - somebody mentioned it already, but such space as on the Evans disc I have not heard elsewhere. Incredibly suggestive was the reproduction of the aura of the recording, all the taps, sounds, and similar (it is a live recording from a club), and then the instruments themselves - everything sounded as if we were at the recorded event. In comparison with it the CD sounded flat and thin. One feature could be observed, a feature that will return in other comparisons of this evening, namely greater precision of the CD. I think that there is no doubt, that the sound from CD is more dynamic, has a better defined bass (although Jacek has different opinion on that) and a clearer drawing of the instruments. This sounds a bit like negation of what I just said about the LP, but it is not, it is just an expansion of that thought. The sound of the LP is perceived as better mostly due to the size of the sound. When a double bass plays solo, then we feel as if we would sit in front of it. Noticed by one of the participants "washout" of the bass on CD was in reality precision. Such big sound from this instrument, as heard from LP, does not exist live. In real world, it is a bit shaggy, and it is difficult to determine the direction it comes from. LP shows it in a slightly warm and big way, making its presence better, bigger is its "reliability", we believe easier, that it is the real instrument. However I think this is a bit a deception, or at least a trick. The instruments in the real world do not sound like that - the Jarret's piano was unequivocally perceived better from LP, but was in my opinion tuned, overdrawn, and lacking many of small elements, that were reproduced from the CD. Regardless of the fact if we see the "reality" of vinyl as the "truth" or artifact, we have to admit, that the CD still lacks some "fleshiness", some kind of filling. Interestingly, this impression is most visible in direct comparison of both formats, because when listening to CD for some time one tends to appreciate its advantages, including the accurate bass and deeper stage, and forget about the shortcomings. Yes - in spite of the larger volume on vinyl, more "inflated" stage, on CD all happenings had better showed depth. In the place where the vinyl starts to fade the details, where the semicircle starts, there the CD shows the snippets with precision, does not show the back wall, but just real space. At least in this combination. This is the first comparison on this level and preliminary conclusions. I will try in time to present other, or at least show their results. I think that it is worthwhile to approach such comparisons with calmness, concentrate on the sound and not the formats, as we can then see more. As I mentioned, the goal of this article is not to convince anybody to anything, but only to tell about a happening. As everything in life, you can look at it from many perspectives, what we did allowing the participants to speak up. However I do think that we captured the most important elements of the sound, that decide about the supremacy of one format over another, and everybody can assess them by themselves. WPEquipment used for the shoot out:
Discs used for comparison:
|
||
| © Copyright HIGH Fidelity 2006, Created by B |